Wallabies v Lions II
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@No-Quarter said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@MajorRage I'm not sure, I'd have to go back and watch it, but I think that's stretching it. He's well into his dive in the still you posted, so it probably depends if there are any head on Aus defenders in front of him when he starts the dive. I think there is at least one, one possibly two or three. It's a dangerous thing to do running into a set defense which again is why it's outlawed.
I think it displays tremendous split second timing and analysis by Sheehan to determine within 0.01 of a second that the defenders were now out of the game and hence he could leap over them without consequence.
I’m not saying he made that decison.
He was always going to dive, clearly. It’s whether by the laws it was legal given the tackler was on his knees.
@MajorRage I think at best there's a frame or two in it as to whether Slipper has a knee on the ground before Sheehan takes flight.
FWIW Slipper makes no effort to wrap, so that's a penalty.
This probably isn't an answer for the technical question you've posed, but I'd have penalised Sheehan for the dive and on TMO referral possibly reversed the penalty for the no arms tackle attempt.
-
@MajorRage I think at best there's a frame or two in it as to whether Slipper has a knee on the ground before Sheehan takes flight.
FWIW Slipper makes no effort to wrap, so that's a penalty.
This probably isn't an answer for the technical question you've posed, but I'd have penalised Sheehan for the dive and on TMO referral possibly reversed the penalty for the no arms tackle attempt.
@antipodean penalty try was not the outcome I was expecting!
-
As a neural, well done to the Lions and congrats to their fans.
I thought the Wallabies put up an epic fight and for the sake of drama - going to a 3rd test decider - I was hoping they'd done enough.
Some on field calls that are talking points for sure. But that's rugby. We (and I completely include myself in that) tend to focus on one or two calls when the result goes the "wrong way". But largely, for 80 minutes, I thought it was a well refereed game. Some misses, of course, but broadly evenly balanced.So what now for the 3rd test?
Does Andy Farrell give some fringe players a run? Or does he go for the clean sheet? -
As a neural, well done to the Lions and congrats to their fans.
I thought the Wallabies put up an epic fight and for the sake of drama - going to a 3rd test decider - I was hoping they'd done enough.
Some on field calls that are talking points for sure. But that's rugby. We (and I completely include myself in that) tend to focus on one or two calls when the result goes the "wrong way". But largely, for 80 minutes, I thought it was a well refereed game. Some misses, of course, but broadly evenly balanced.So what now for the 3rd test?
Does Andy Farrell give some fringe players a run? Or does he go for the clean sheet? -
@sparky said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Gee, Aussie sports fans like a big old whinge these days.
Can't they see the Lions won that fair and square? Whatever happened to accepting the official's decision and moving on?
Yeah we never do that on here …
@MajorRage said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@sparky said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Gee, Aussie sports fans like a big old whinge these days.
Can't they see the Lions won that fair and square? Whatever happened to accepting the official's decision and moving on?
Yeah we never do that on here …
Yep some do Major, still no excuse for anyone. It's easy way out for so called fans to blame refs.
-
@Billy-Webb should go for an all Irish starting XV. Maybe make the bench all Scotland and Wales just for shits n giggles.
@Bones said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Billy-Webb should go for an all Irish starting XV. Maybe make the bench all Scotland and Wales just for shits n giggles.
Hahaha. That would ruffle some feathers.
-
I was watching the game with a few mates and we were all a bit pissed off at getting pumped in the first half but I wondered aloud that the intensity and frequency of the carries by Skelton and Valetini would be hard to maintain. Towards the end of the first half, Skelton in particular, had lost a lot of impetus in his carrying. I assume the plan was always to use these two as much as possible and then replace them against a tiring Lions defence. Unfortunately the replacements are several rungs below those two.
Skelton and Valetini were returning from injuries so were never going to go the full 80 mins. Maybe Schmidt had a plan for them to empty the tank but would have hoped for more minutes on the field. As others have said, it wouldn't have been such an issue if their replacements offered similar impact. Glesson did OK but Williams' lack of bulk was an issue - again.
-
I’m still surprised about the Sheehan try being even considered as regulation play - when other teams (international, domestic, school) start trying to run that plan and someone gets hurt, it will come back and bite WR on the ass if they don’t come out and explain that this shouldn’t have been allowed.
What if he was just a fluffybunny hair short? Then it has to be a penalty. Terrible refereeing
@gt12 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
I’m still surprised about the Sheehan try being even considered as regulation play - when other teams (international, domestic, school) start trying to run that plan and someone gets hurt, it will come back and bite WR on the ass if they don’t come out and explain that this shouldn’t have been allowed.
What if he was just a fluffybunny hair short? Then it has to be a penalty. Terrible refereeing
I think that decision needs a clarification by World Rugby. I'm fine to chalk the final decision up to a 50/50, 'one of those things' and move on.
But that one to me is a lot more gray when you look at the Laws as they are written. Much like the Boks lineout lift I think it would be good to get an official word on where it sits, because I don't think it helps anyone for that to stay a bit uncertain.
-
I read somewhere that Valetini felt a tweak in his calf at half time, which is why he was subbed.
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Lions II:
I read somewhere that Valetini felt a tweak in his calf at half time, which is why he was subbed.
Yes there was definitely something because Valetini certainly wasn’t labouring up until the 40th minute whereas Skelton looked a little weary at about the 35th minute and then was given another 5 after HT.
-
@gt12 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
I’m still surprised about the Sheehan try being even considered as regulation play - when other teams (international, domestic, school) start trying to run that plan and someone gets hurt, it will come back and bite WR on the ass if they don’t come out and explain that this shouldn’t have been allowed.
What if he was just a fluffybunny hair short? Then it has to be a penalty. Terrible refereeing
I think that decision needs a clarification by World Rugby. I'm fine to chalk the final decision up to a 50/50, 'one of those things' and move on.
But that one to me is a lot more gray when you look at the Laws as they are written. Much like the Boks lineout lift I think it would be good to get an official word on where it sits, because I don't think it helps anyone for that to stay a bit uncertain.
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@gt12 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
I’m still surprised about the Sheehan try being even considered as regulation play - when other teams (international, domestic, school) start trying to run that plan and someone gets hurt, it will come back and bite WR on the ass if they don’t come out and explain that this shouldn’t have been allowed.
What if he was just a fluffybunny hair short? Then it has to be a penalty. Terrible refereeing
I think that decision needs a clarification by World Rugby. I'm fine to chalk the final decision up to a 50/50, 'one of those things' and move on.
But that one to me is a lot more gray when you look at the Laws as they are written. Much like the Boks lineout lift I think it would be good to get an official word on where it sits, because I don't think it helps anyone for that to stay a bit uncertain.
I can’t see how it is in any way ‘safer’ than the ruling on the PGS try from a few years ago, perhaps there has been a new interpretation but this looks cut and dried to me. I’m still surprised it was allowed to stand.
-
Question on laws from those in the know. Do they actually say you can't make contact above shoulders? Just in last ruck/breakdown Tizzano actually had his neck and head lower that his shoulders. :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: Ok just taking piss , but hey..........
-
Question on laws from those in the know. Do they actually say you can't make contact above shoulders? Just in last ruck/breakdown Tizzano actually had his neck and head lower that his shoulders. :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: Ok just taking piss , but hey..........
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Question on laws from those in the know. Do they actually say you can't make contact above shoulders? Just in last ruck/breakdown Tizzano actually had his neck and head lower that his shoulders. :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: Ok just taking piss , but hey..........
Was a tackle not a ruck. His head was level with his hips but when he was hit by Morgan he folded due to the impact on his neck.
To my knowledge there is no requirement by a jackaler at a tackle to have their head level or above their hips but as soon as someone from the opposition binds to them to form a ruck then they would need to instantly adjust their height.
The laws are f'ed and contradictory. If it were a computer program it would be a bug.
People say that those kind of clean outs were happening a lot throughout the game and I think that's true. I also think a lot of the cleanouts were dodgy by the Lions all series. Charging in and no bind.
-
There’s a very easy way to sort it out and it has precedent
When I started playing rugby in the 70s we did drills every training session to prepare yourself for the match situation
As soon as you hit the deck you let go of the ball and placed both your hands on your head to protect you from the inevitable trampling that would follow
World Rugby are not going to bring back rucking but if they mandated that the ball carrier soon as the hips hit the deck has to either pass the ball instantly and/or release the ball and not handle & place it like he’s a Vegas dealer then the contest for the ball becomes cleaner and quicker
Invariably the jackler will win possession but then is fair game for a legal hit/tackle from the opposition
Anyone other than the tackled player off their feet then it’s an automatic penalty, regardless of whether it’s deliberate or accidental
Defence coaches are already training their players to commit to some breakdowns and not others
This is a skills and timing issue which can be learned
And the better players and coaches learn very fucking quickly
-
Anyone should, whether they have skin in the game or not, accept that both instances, whilst contentious, were subject fine margins and interpretation and as such, liable to go either way. To a degree this is the essence of sport, but here it is not helped by the ambiguity of the laws leaving a much greater emphasis on that interpretation thing. We've all been subject to 50/50 decisions and been on the losing end of it.
Grow a pair of bollocks and move on to the next game.
-
The problem is the interpretation of "foul play" changes from week to week, ref to ref and TMO to TMO.
Meaning what is penalisable or worse one week isn't the next, that creates huge issues for the game.
I think if that had been called back and a penalty awarded we'd still be having this same conversation about "that moment"
-
The problem is the interpretation of "foul play" changes from week to week, ref to ref and TMO to TMO.
Meaning what is penalisable or worse one week isn't the next, that creates huge issues for the game.
I think if that had been called back and a penalty awarded we'd still be having this same conversation about "that moment"
Spot on.
